# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 23 94

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Zack ary Lee St ewart

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Karl W ag ne r, Mat t Se lb y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 6
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 12 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

In 20 08

, a Mi ss ou ri jury co nv ic te d Zack ary St ewart of m ur de rin g Dav id Dul in

. On ap pe al

, St ewart arg ue d th e tri al co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

ba se d on ne wly-dis co ve red ev id en ce. The S u p r e me C ou rt of Mi ss ou ri ag reed

,

rev ers ed th e co nv ic ti on , an d rem an de d fo r a ne w tri al

. St at e v. St ewart

, 31 3 S.W .3d

66 1 (Mo

. ba nc 20 10 ). The ch arg es were dr op pe d whe n an ot he r pe rs on co nf es se d toth e m

ur de r. St ewart th en fil ed th is civ il da m ag e act io n aga in st fiv e in di vi du al s and

St on e Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri, as se rti ng va rio us cl ai m s un de r 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d

Mi ss ou ri st at e la w. Defen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t

gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t an d di sm is se d St on e Co un ty, th e Co un ty Sh eri ff, an d th e

Sh e r iff ’s cri m in al in ve st ig at io n su pe rv is or

. The co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns of St on e

Co un ty Pr o s e c u t or Mat t Sel by, le ad in ve st ig at or Karl W ag ne r, an d in ve st ig at or

Orv il le Ch oa te

, who ha s no t ap pe al ed

, reject in g th ei r cl ai m s of ab so l u t e , qu al ifi ed

,

an d o ffi ci al im m

un it y . Selb y

an d Wagn er ap pe al . W e rev ers e in pa rt a nd rem an d.

I. J uri sd ic tio n a nd the Is su es on Appea l.

“ An in te rlo cu to ry or de r de nyin g qu al ifi ed im m un it y is im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le

to th e ex te nt th at it tu rn s on an is su e of la w. If th e or de r tu rn s on is su es of fact

, rat he r

th an an ab st ract is su e of la w, we la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er t h e a p pe al be cau se th e

de ci si on is no t a fin al or de r im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le un de r th e co ll at er a l o r de r

do ct rin e.” Aaro n v. Sh el le y , 62 4 F. 3 d 88 2, 88 3- 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on an d

q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. W e al so la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er pe nd en t in te rlo cu to ry cl a i ms

un de r st at e an d fed eral la w un le ss th os e cl ai m s are “ in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d wit h th e

co ll at eral or de r th at i s pr op erl y ap pe al ed

, or whe re rev ie w [is ] ne ces sa ry to en su re

m ean in gf ul rev ie w of th e pr op erl y ap pe al ed is su e.” Kin cad e v. Ci ty of Bl ue Sp rin gs , 64 F.3d 38 9, 3 94 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5) , cert . den ie d, 5 17 U.S. 11 66 (19 96 ).

Here, Sel by pr op erl y ap pe al s th e de ni al o f q ua li fie d im m un it y an d ab so lu te

pr os ecu to ria l im m

un it y fro m St ewart ’s § 19 83 du e pr oc es s cl ai m ba se d on th e al le ge d

fab ric at io n of fal se te st im on y by a wit n e s s a t St ewart ’s p rel im in ary h eari ng

. Sel by

an d W ag ne r pr op erl y ap pe al th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m St ewart ’s § 19 83

Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m s fo r act io ns th at res ul te d in te st im o n y b y jail ho us e

in fo rm an ts at hi s cri m in al tri al

. Howev er, we d e c li ne Sel by’ s fu rth er in vi ta ti on to

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of (i) § 19 83 cl ai m s th at Sel by ha s no t br ie fed

, su ch

-2

-as St ewart ’s § 19 83 co ns pi racy cl ai m ; an d (ii ) St ewart ’s st at e la w cl ai m s. Thi s 1

op in io n sh ou ld no t be co ns tru ed as ex pr es si ng ou r vi ew on an y of th es e ot he r cl ai m s,

wit h t he fol lo win g e xc ep ti on :

St ewart cl ai m s th at in ve st ig at or s W ag ne r an d Ch oa te vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to du e

pr oc es s as de fin ed in Brad y v. Mar y la nd

, 37 3 U.S. 83

, 87 (1 96 3)

, whe n th ey cau se d

t h e pr os ecu ti on no t to di sc lo se ev id en ce th at wou ld ha ve be en fav or ab le to t h e

de fen se at St ewart ’s tri al

. The su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd is rep le te wit h m at eri al fact

di sp ut es reg ard in g th es e cl ai m s, an d W ag ne r ha s no t ap pe al ed th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

. Howev er, we no te th at

, whi le a pr os ecu to r’s du ty to di sc lo se is ab so lu te

,
to reco ve r da m ag es fro m ot he r la w en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls fo r a B r a d y vi ol at io n, a § 19 83 pl ai nt iff m

us t pr ov e th e req ui si te men s re a

. In de nyin g in ve st ig at or s W ag ne r

an d Ch oa te su m

m ary jud gm en t on th is cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e

am or ph ou s “ ba d fa it h” men s r ea st an da rd set for th in W hi te v. M cKin le y , 51 9 F .3d

80 6, 81 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), rat he r th an th e m or e pr eci se st an da rd ad op te d in ou r earl ie r,

an d th eref or e co nt ro ll in g, op in io n in Vil la sa na v. W il ho it

, 36 8 F.3 d 97 6, 98 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 04 )
-- “ Brad y en su res th at th e de fen da nt wil l ob ta in rel ie f fro m a co nv ic ti on ta in te d
by th e St at e’s no nd is cl os ur e of m at eri al ly fav or ab le ev id en ce, reg ard le ss of fau lt

, bu t

th e rec ov ery of

§ 1 98 3 d am ag es req ui res pr oo f th at a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer o th er

th an th e pr os ecu to r in te nd ed to de pr iv e th e de

fe n da nt of a fa ir tr ia l .” (Em ph as is

ad de d.) The di st ric t co ur t m us t ap pl y th is co nt ro ll in g st an da rd whe n th e is su e ag ai n

ari se s o n re m an d, wh et he r be fo re, d ur in g, o r aft er t ria l.

Sel by arg ue s th at he is en ti tl ed to of fic ia l im m

un it y un de r Mi ss ou ri la w fo r hi s 1

pe rfo rm an ce of di sc ret io na ry act s as a pr os ecu to r. Bu t he ci te s no au th or it y , as he

m us t, es ta bl is hi ng th at in te rlo cu to ry de ni al s of of fic ia l im m un it y un de r st at e la w are

co ll at eral or de rs wit hi n ou r li m it ed ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

. In ad di ti on , Mi ss ou ri’s
of fic ia l im m

un it y do ct rin e sh ie l d s on ly ne gl ig en t act s. Dav is v. Lam be rt- St

. Lou is

In t’l Airp or t, 19 3 S.W .3d 76 0, 76 3 (Mo

. ba nc 20 06 ). The di st ric t co ur t fo un d ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact as to whe th er St ewart co ul d pr ov e in te nt io na l m is co nd uc t, no t

m erel y ne gl ig en t ac ts

.

-3

-II . The “ Fabr ic at ed Ev id ence ” Cl ai m

.

On Nov em

be r 29

, 20 06

, Dul in cal le d 91 1 fro m hi s ho m e in St on e Co un ty an d

rep or te d th at he ha d be en sh ot wit h hi s own .22 cal ib er ha nd gu n by two m en in th ei r

twen ti es or th irt i e s , an d th at on e id en ti fie d hi m se lf as th e bo y fri en d of an “ Eby g irl

fro m Hur le y .” Dul in di ed at th e sc en e. The St on e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce as si gn ed

W ag ne r as lea d d et ect iv e in th e h om ic id e in ve st ig at io n.

The in ve st ig at io n fo cu se d on Dul in ’s st at em en t th at th e bo y fri en d of an “ Eby
gi rl fro m Hur le y” was in vo lv ed

. St ewart

, th en ei gh te en y ears ol d, was th e so n of

Pau la Eby of Hur le y

. His si st ers were Can dy Seam an , m arri ed to bu t se pa rat ed fro m

Ti m Seam an , an d Ch ris ty Pet ho ud

, th en li vi ng wit h he r bo y fri en d, Leo Co n n e l l y.

Tho ug h Pet ho ud ’s la st na m e was no t “ Eby,” th e in ve st ig at io n tre at ed he r as an “ Eby
gi rl.” In te rv ie wed on Decem be r 1, St ewart to ld in ve st ig at or s th at he sp en t th e ni gh t

in qu es ti on at th e ho m e of Pet ho ud an d Co nn el ly, an d th at Tim Seam an was m arri ed

to hi s s is te r, Can dy Seam an

.

On Mar ch 15

, 20 07

, Ali ci a Kim be rli ng arri ve d at th e St on e C o u n t y Ju di ci al

Cen te r fo r a pr ob at io n a pp oi nt m en t. Wagn er l earn ed th at Kim be rli ng ha d sa id Leo

Co nn el ly was in vo lv ed in th e ho m ic id e. He arre st ed he r fo r an un res ol ve d pr ob at io n

vi ol at io n an d in te rv ie wed he r. Kim be rli ng id en ti fie d Co nn el ly an d Pet ho ud as

Dul in ’s ki ll ers bu t di d no t cl ai m St ewart was in vo lv ed

. W ag ne r to ld he r St ewart was

a su sp ect an d St ewart an d Co nn el ly were to ge th er th at ni gh t. Sh e ag reed to as si st th e

in ve st ig a ti on aft er le arn in g ab ou t po te nt ia l rewar ds fo r co op erat in g. W ag ne r

pr ov id ed Kim

be rli ng wit h d e v i c es to reco rd co nv ers at io ns wit h Co nn el ly, Can dy

Seam an , an d St ewart on Mar ch 16

, 17

, an d 2 0

. Th e reco rd in gs pr ov id ed no

in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e.

On Mar ch 27 , a fte r Sel by h ad di sc us se d a p le a ag reem en t wit h Kim be rli ng ’s

at to rn ey , S el by an d Wagn er i nt erv ie wed Kim be rli ng . She in cri m in at ed Ste wart fo r

-4

-th e fir st ti m e, cl ai m in g th at sh e sa w St ewart

, Co nn el ly, an d Pet ho ud in a car sh or tl y

aft er th e ho m ic id e; th at Co nn el ly was co ve red in bl oo d; th at St ewart was in th e ba ck

of th e car; an d th at sh e sa w a gu n. At th is po in t in th e reco rd ed in te rv ie w, Kim be rli ng

st op pe d ans weri ng qu es ti on s and sa id : “ I’m sc ared

. . . . I’m so sc ared to ta lk to y ou

gu y s.” Se lb y

res po nd ed :

You k n o w , A l i c ia

, y ou ’re no t -- I do n’t th in k by ta lk in g y ou ’re
in crea si ng an y th in g th at y ou ha ve to be sc ared of , yo u k n o w w h a t I’m

sa y in g? I m ean , th e th in gs th at y ou ’ve al read y tal ke d a bo ut wou ld pu t

y ou in th e po si ti on of be in g a wit ne ss

. Oka y ? So to te ll ev erythi ng y ou kn ow is no t go in g to m ak e th in gs an y wor se , bu t if it’s m or e he lp fu l to

us , it ’s go in g t o b e m or e h el pf ul to y ou

.

Als o on Mar ch 27

, W ag ne r qu es ti on ed St ewart ab ou t t h e D ul in ho m ic id e;

St ewart de ni ed in vo lv em en t or kn owl ed ge

. On Mar ch 29

, Wa g n er co m pl et ed an

affi da vi t or sta te m en t of pro ba bl e cau se , reci ti ng wha t Kim be rli ng sa id to im

pl ic at e

St ewart at th e Mar ch 27 in t e r v i e w

. Th e st at em en t di d no t rep or t th at sh e ha d

im pl ic at ed Pet ho ud an d Co nn el ly, bu t no t St ewart

, at th e in it ia l in te rv ie w. Tha t da y , Sel by fil ed m

ur de r ch arg es ag ai ns t St ewart an d Co nn el ly ba se d on th e pr ob ab le cau se

st at em en t; Ste wart , in th e m id dl e o f se rv in g a two -week jail sen te nc e fo r DW I, was

de ta in ed on th e mu r de r ch arg e. So m e week s la te r, Kim be rli ng te st ifi ed at th e

pr el im in ary he ari ng . She di d n ot tes ti fy at S te wart ’s tri al

.

Co un t I of St ewart ’s S eco nd Am en d e d Co m pl ai nt in cl ud ed th e § 19 83 cl ai m

th at Pro se cu to r Sel by an d Dete ct iv e W ag ne r pr oc ur ed Kim be rli ng ’s fab r i c a te d

st at em en ts to crea te pr ob ab le cau se whe n no ne ex is te d. S te wart ’s Su gg es ti on s in
Opp os it io n to de fen da nt s’ su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns arg ue d th is pa rt of hi s cl ai m s

in Co un t I as a vi ol at io n of hi s rig ht to su bs ta nt iv e du e p r o ces s. In de nyin g

de f e nd an ts ’ m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at

“ W ag ne r’s rel ia nc e on th e po rti on s of Al ic ia Kim be rli ng ’s st at em en ts th at

co rro bo rat ed th e th eo ry of th e cas e th at Zack St ewart co m m it te d th e m

ur de r, bu t

-5

-ig no re d he r co ntr ad ic tor y sta te m en ts w ith out fu

rt he r inv es tig at ion vi ol at ed [St ewart ’s]

du e p ro ces s ri gh ts .” On ap pe al , Sel by argu es th e co ur t er red in de nyin g h is m ot io n

fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th is cl ai m

. “ W he th er a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht ex is ts

is a qu es ti on of la w.” Mo ran v. Cl ark e, 29 6 F.3 d 63 8, 64 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (en ba nc ).

Bec au se th e Su pr em e Co ur t is “ rel uc ta nt to ex pa nd th e co nc ep t of su bs ta nt iv e

du e pr oc es s,” it ha s he ld “ th at whe re a pa rti cu la r Am en dm en t pr ov id e s a n e x p l i ci t

te xt ua l so ur ce of co ns ti tu ti on al pr ot ect io ns ag ai ns t a pa rti cu la r so rt o f g ov ern m en t

be ha vi or , th at Am en dm en t, no t th e m or e ge ne ral iz ed no ti on of su bs ta nt iv e du e

pr oc es s, m

us t be th e gu id e fo r an al y zi ng th os e cl a i ms

. ” Co un ty of Sacr am en to v.

Lewis

, 52 3 U.S. 83 3, 84 2 (1 99 8) (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n om it te d)

. The refo re, a § 19 83 pl ai nt iff ’s c la im th at he was a r r e s t e d or pr os ecu te d wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se ,

ev en if la be le d a cl ai m of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , “ m us t be jud ge d” un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t, no t su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s. Alb rig ht v. Oli ve r, 51 0 U.S. 26 6, 27 0- 71

& n.4 (1 99 4) (p lu ral it y op in io n joi ne d by se ve n Ju st ic es o n t h i s is su e). W e

reco gn iz ed in Mo ran th at ad di ti on al co ns id erat io ns in a p a r t i c u l a r cas e m ay tri gg er

su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s pro te ct io n, lik e th e im pa ct of “ fal se ly-creat ed ev id en ce an d

ot he r de fam at or y act io ns ” on a pu bl ic em pl oyee pl ai nt iff ’s care er, an d th e eq ua l

pr ot ect io n in te res t in no t be in g in ve st ig at ed or pu ni sh ed on acco un t of race , th at were

pr es en t in th at cas e. 29 6 F.3 d at 64 5. Bu t he re, St ewart was no t a pu bl ic em pl oyee,

race was no t an is su e, an d th e al le ge d fab ric at ed ev id en ce was on ly us ed in a pr ob ab le

cau se st at em en t. Thu s, th e ge ne ral ru le in Oli ve r ap pl ie s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d an erro r of la w in no t jud gi ng th e act io ns of Sel by an d W ag ne r un de r th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

St ewart ’s Su gg es ti on s in Opp os it io n to sum m ar y j udgm en t m ad e onl y a cu rs or y

refe ren ce to on e Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr eced en t, Mal le y v. B r i g g s , 47 5 U.S. 33 4
(1 98 6)

. He m ad e no sh o w i n g t h a t th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t req ui red W ag ne r to

di sc lo se al l of Kim

be rli ng ’s st at em en ts in a pr ob ab le cau se st atem en t, an d no sh owi ng

th at W ag ne r an d Sel by di d no t ha ve ar gu ab le pr ob ab le cau se to arre st

, th e go ve rn in g

-6

-Fo ur th am en dm en t st an da rd

. See New v. Den ve r, 78 7 F.3 d 89 5, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ).

“ The ev al ua ti on of ev id e n c e to de te rm in e if pr ob ab le cau se ex is ts is no t an ex act

sc ie nc e.” Bro dn ic ki v. Ci ty of Om ah a, 75 F.3 d 12 61

, 12 65 (8 th Ci r.). cert

. de ni ed

, 51 9 U.S. 86 7 (1 99 6)

. Qua li fie d im m un it y “ gi ve s am

pl e ro om fo r m is ta ke n jud gm en ts by pr ot ect in g al l bu t th e pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt or th os e who kn owi ng ly vi ol a t e th e

la w.” Hun te r v. Bryant

, 50 2 U.S. 22 4, 22 9 (1 99 1) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. W e no te th at

th e pr el im in ary he ari ng at whi ch Kim be rli ng te st ifi ed was ne arl y two mo nt hs aft er

ch arg es were fil ed ba se d on W ag ne r’s pr ob ab le cau se st at em en t. St ewart di d no t ga in

pr et ria l rel eas e or di sm is sa l of th e ch arg e s a t t h a t he ari ng , whi ch st ro ng ly su gg es ts

th at th e p res en ce o f arg ua bl e p ro ba bl e cau se was o ve rwh el m in g.

On th is reco rd

, we co nc lu de it was erro r t o d en y Pro se cu to r Sel by qu al ifi ed

im m un it y on th is cl ai m be cau se St ewart fa il ed to pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at

W ag ne r an d Sel by vi ol at ed “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d [Fo ur th Am en dm en t] rig ht s of whi ch

a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” Harl ow v. Fi tz ge ral d, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 7- 18
(1 98 2) ; cf. Mo rri s v. Lan ph er, 56 3 F.3 d 39 9, 40 3 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 55 8 U.S. 97 0
( 2 0 0 9 )

. Giv en th is co nc lu si on , we ne ed no t co ns id er Sel by’ s al te rn at iv e arg u men t

th at he is en ti tl ed to ab so lu te im m un it y fro m th is cla im

.

II I. The Six th Am endment Cla ims.

On th e aft ern oo n of Mar ch 30

, Vict or Park er and Co ty Po ll ard

, St ewart ’s cel l

m at es , to ld W ag ne r th ey ha d in fo rm at io n on th e Dul in ho m ic id e bu t sa id th ey wan te d

th ei r la wy er p res en t whe n th ey di sc lo se d t he in fo rm at io n a nd a be ne fit in ex ch an ge

fo r pr ov id in g it

. Park er to ld Sel by at a se co nd in te rv ie w on Apr il 3 th at W ag ne r to ld

hi m to “ fin d ou t anythi ng y ou can .” Afte r be in g app ro ach ed by Park er and Po ll ard

, W ag ne r qu es ti on ed St e w art ab ou t hi s st at em en ts to hi s cel lm at es

. St ewart sa id

, “ I

di dn ’t te ll em no th in

, I do n’t kn ow no th in

. I ne ed to sp eak wit h an at to rn ey .” W ag ne r

th en as ke d Sel by if he co ul d arra n g e f o r Park er an d Po ll ard ’s la wy er to be pr es en t

whi le th ey were qu es ti on ed ; Park e r a nd Po ll ard were ret ur ne d to th ei r cel l wit h

-7

-St ewart

. Bet ween Mar ch 30 an d Apr il 3, Park er rep eat ed ly qu es ti on ed St ewart ab ou t

th e Dul in ho m ic id e a n d en co ur ag ed St ewart to im pl ic at e hi m se lf in th e m ur de r,

de sp it e St ewart ’s in si st en ce h e was no t i nv ol ve d.

On Apr il 3, W ag ne r an d Sel by in te rv ie wed Park er. D u r i n g th is in te rv ie w,

Park er offer ed to qu es ti on St ewart ab ou t th e m ur de r. W ag ne r sa id

, “ we can ’t real ly

as k y ou to go ba ck th ere a nd di g fo r an y th in g, I wo ul d s ay if y ou do ha pp en to he ar

an y th in g, I wou ld real ly li ke to he ar ab ou t it bu t I can ’t as k y ou to go ba ck th ere an d

as k qu es ti on s sp eci fic al ly.” Sel by ad de d, “ if y ou do an y th in g on la w en fo rcem en t’s

be ha lf, [it ’s] jus t as if th e la w en fo rcem en t was do in g it th em se lv es

. . . . [O]n th e

ot he r ha nd

, I do n’t thi nk th ere’s any ob li ga ti on th at jus t beca us e he ’s ta lk in g to y ou

t h a t w e ha ve to m ov e y ou ou t of th ere.” Sel by to ld Park er he di d no t ne ed t o “p u t [h is ] pi ll ow ov er [h is ] ears if [St ewart ] st art s ta lk in g or an y th in g.” Park er an d Po ll ard

te st ifi e d a t S t e wart ’s tri al an d were, in Sel by’ s wor ds

, th e “ ke y wit ne ss es .” See

St ewart

, 31 3 S.W .3d at 66 5- 66

. St ewart ’s on ly tri al wit ne ss was hi s si st er, Pet ho ud

, who tes ti fie d t ha t St ewart st ay ed ov ern ig ht at h er h ou se on th e ni gh t of th e m ur de r.

Id . at 6 64

.

Onc e th e ad ve rs ary jud ic ia l pr oc es s ha s b e e n in it ia te d, th e Si xt h am en dm en t

g u a r a n te es a de fen da nt th e rig ht to ha ve co un se l pr es en t at al l cri ti cal st ag es of th e

cri m in al pr oc eed in gs , in cl ud in g i nt erro ga ti on by th e St at e. See Uni te d St at es v.

Gou ve ia

, 46 7 U.S. 18 0, 18 7 (1 98 4) ; Mas si ah v. Uni te d St at es , 37 7 U.S. 20 1, 20 4- 05
(1 96 4)

. In Kuh lm an n v. W il so n, 47 7 U.S. 43 6, 45 9 (1 98 6)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t st at ed

th e ap pl ic ab le st an da rd whe n th e is su e is w h e t he r tri al te st im on y of a jail ho us e

in fo rm an t s ho ul d b e su pp res se d fo r vi ol at io n o f th is pri nc ip le :

Si nc e th e Si xt h Am en dm en t is no t vi ol at ed whe ne ve r -- by lu c k or ha pp en st an ce -- th e St at e ob t a in s in cri m in at in g st at em en ts fro m th e

accu se d aft er th e rig ht to co un se l ha s at ta ch ed

, a d e f en da nt do es no t

m ak e ou t a vi ol at io n of th at rig ht si m pl y by sh owi ng th at an in fo rm an t, ei th er th ro ug h p r i o r arra ng em en t or vo lu nt ari ly, rep or te d hi s

-8

-in cri m in at in g st at em en ts to th e po li ce. Rat he r, th e de fen da nt m us t de m on st rat e th at th e po li ce an d th ei r in fo rm an t to ok so m e act io n, be y on d m erel y li st en in g, th at was de si gn ed de li be rat el y to el ic i t
in cri m in at in g re m ark s.

(Qu ot at io ns a n d c it at io n om it te d.) App lying th is pr in ci pl e, we ha ve he ld th at

, to

es ta bl is h a Si xt h Am en dm en t vi ol at io n warra nt in g su pp res si on of st at em en ts m ad e

to a jail ho us e in fo rm an t, de fen da nt m us t sh ow (1 ) “ hi s rig ht to co un se l ha d at ta ch ed ,”
(2 ) th e in fo rm an t “ was a go ve rn m en t ag en t,” an d ( 3 ) t h e in fo rm an t “ de li be rat el y

el ic it ed in cri m in at in g st at em en ts fro m hi m .” Mo or e v. Uni te d St at es , 17 8 F.3 d 99 4,

99 9 (8 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 5 28 U.S. 94 3 (1 99 9)

.

St ewart cl ai m s W ag ne r an d Sel by vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h an d Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l whe n th ey ob ta in ed a fal se co nf es si on “ th ro ug h th e us e

of jail ho us e sn it ch es Po ll ard an d Park er as [th ei r] ag en ts .” The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

W ag ne r an d Sel by qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m th is cl ai m be cau se th ere ex is ts “ ge nu in e

is su es of m at eri al fact as to whe th er [th ey ] vi ol at ed St ewart ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht

to co un se l by di rect in g Park er to gl ean ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n fro m St ewart aft er he

h a d i n vo ke d hi s rig ht to co un se l, an d by se nd in g Park er an d Po ll ard ba ck i n t o t h e

sa m e c e l l wit h St ewart aft er he ha d in vo ke d hi s rig ht to co un se l, th ereb y crea ti ng a

‘sit ua ti on li ke ly to i nd uc e’ [Stewa rt] to m ak e in cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts .”

If th is were an ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of a mo t i o n to su pp res s or ex cl ud e th e

t e st im on y of Park er an d Po ll ard

, or fro m th e de ni al of a pr op erl y pr es erv ed fe d e r a l

ha be as cl ai m , we m ig ht well ag ree th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of a Si xt h Am en dm en t

vi ol at io n un de r Kuh lm an n to warra nt a fu ll tri al of th is cl ai m

. Bu t th is is th e ap pe al

fro m th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m a § 19 83 cl ai m

. Neit he r th e di st ric t co ur t

no r St ewart ci te d, an d we ha ve no t fo un d, a rep or te d fed eral de ci si on di sc us si ng th e

el em en ts of a § 19 83 Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m ba se d on us e of a jail ho us e in fo rm an t’s

te st im on y at tri al

, an d th e pr op er ap pl ic at io n of qu al ifi ed im m un it y pr in ci pl es to su ch

a cl ai m . The ab se nc e o f su ch pre ced en t i s n ot di sp os it iv e b ut is cle arl y rel ev an t.

-9

-Bec au se qu al if ie d im m un it y pr ot ect s al l bu t th e in co m pe te nt

, an d kn owi ng

vi ol at or s, “ [w]e do no t req ui re a cas e di rect ly on po in t be fo re co nc lu di ng [th e § 19 83

de fen da nt vi ol at ed] cl ea

rly es ta bl is he d [la w]

, bu t ex is ti ng pr eced en t m us t ha ve pl aced

th e st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on be y on d de ba te .” St an to n v. Si m s, 13 4 S. Ct

. 3, 5 (2 01 3)

, qu ot in g Ash cr o f t v

. A l -Kid d, 13 1 S. Ct

. 20 74

, 20 83 (2 01 1)

. Here, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t an d Eig ht h Ci rcu it cas es m os t di rect ly on po in t, Ku h lm an n an d

Mo or e, req u i r e St ewart to pr ov e th at W ag ne r an d Sel by to ok act io n “ th at was

de si gn ed de li be rat el y to el ic it in cri m in at in g rem ark s,” no t m erel y li st en in g, th ereb y

m ak in g Po ll ard an d Park er go ve rn m en t ag en ts. “ A n inf or m an t beco m es a go ve rn m en t

ag en t fo r pu rp os es of [th e Si xt h Am en d m en t’s pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t de li be rat e

go ve rn m en t el ic it at io n] on ly whe n th e in fo rm an t ha s be en in s t r u c t e d by th e [g ov ern m en t] t o ge t in fo rm at io n a b o u t t h e pa rti cu la r de fen da nt .” Mo or e, 17 8 F.3 d

at 99 9 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Here, acco rd in g to Park er, W ag ne r to ld hi m to “ fin d ou t

an y th in g y ou c a n” a few ho ur s aft er Sel by fil ed ch arg es ag ai ns t St ewart -- whi ch

st art ed th e “ ad ve rs ary jud ic ia l pr oc es s” fo r pu rp os es of Mas si ah
– bu t be fo re St ewart

in vo ked hi s rig ht to co un se l fo r th e fir st ti m e aft er co op erat in g wit h in ve st ig at or s fo r

so m e fo ur m on th s.

The fo ll owi ng fact s are un di sp ut ed : (i) Park er an d Po ll ard cam e to W ag ne r th e

aft ern oo n o f th e d ay

Ste wart was fi rs t ch arg ed , off eri ng to pro vi de in fo rm at io n th at

St ewart ha d vo lu nt eere d th e ni gh t be fo re, whi ch tu rn ed ou t to be a co nf es si on th at he

pa rti ci pa te d in th e m

ur de r bu t la ck in g de ta il s; (ii ) be fo re th at

, St ewart ha d rep eat ed ly

ta l k e d to W ag ne r ab ou t th e m ur de r wit ho ut in vo ki ng hi s rig ht to co un se l; (ii i)

acco rd in g t o P ark er, Wagn er tol d hi m to “ fin d o ut an y th in g you can ” fro m Ste wart ; (iv ) W ag ne r im m ed ia te ly to ld St ewart th at hi s cel l m at es sa id he ha d co nf es se d, an d

St ewart in vo ke d hi s rig ht to co un se l; (v ) whe n W ag ne r an d Sel by m et wit h Park er an d

Po ll ard a few da y s la te r, th ey in st ru ct ed th e in fo rm an ts to co nt in ue li st en in g bu t no t

to el ic it st at em en ts fro m St ewart

, be cau se th at wou ld be “ jus t as if th e la w

en fo rcem en t was do in g it th em se lv es ;” (v i) th ey th en pu t Po ll ard an d Park er ba ck in

St ewart ’s cel l.

-1 0-W ag ne r an d Sel by te st ifi ed th ey were aware of an d be li ev ed th ei r act io ns at th e

Apr il 3 in te rv ie w di d no t vi ol at e St ewart ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s. Eve n if W ag ne r

ha d en co ur ag ed Park er to be m or e th an a “ li st en in g po st ” at th e Mar ch 30 m eet in g (a

di sp ut ed is su e of fact ), W ag ne r im m ed ia te ly to ld St ewart th at hi s cel l m at es were

rep or ti ng what he sai d, fa ir wa rn in g n ot to tal k t o th em if he was in vo ki ng hi s rig ht

to co un se l. The jud gm en t of W ag ne r an d Sel by on th is is su e m ay ha ve be en wro ng , bu t Kuh lm an n a n d th e earl ie r cas es it ap pl ie d crea te a ve ry in di st in ct li ne be twee n

ag gr es si ve us e of jail ho us e in fo rm an ts th at do es an d do es n o t v i ol at e th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t rig ht s of a de fen da nt who ha s jus t be en ch arg ed an d in vo ke s hi s rig ht to

co un se l. And th ere were no § 19 83 pr eced en ts gi vi ng th es e de fen da nt s “ fai r an d cl ear

warn in g of wha t th e Co ns ti tu ti on req ui res ,” Al-Ki dd

, 13 1 S. C t

. a t 2 0 86 -8 7
(q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

, an d th eref or e no “ ex is ti ng pr eced en t [th at ] pl aced th e st at ut or y

or co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on be y on d de ba te ,” St an to n, 1 3 4 S

. C t

. at 5. In su ch

ci rcu m st an ces , su pp res si on , no t § 19 83 da m ag e li ab il it y , is th e ap pr op ria te rem ed y

. Cf. Han no n v . San ne r, 44 1 F .3d 63 5, 6 38 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

The re is an ot he r fu nd am en ta l reas on why W ag ne r an d Sel by de se rv e qu al ifi ed

im m un it y fro m th is § 19 83 da m ag e cl ai m

. St ewart fai le d to p u t i n t he su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd ev id en ce of whet he r de fen se co un se l at tri al m ov ed to su pp res s or

ex cl ud e te st im on y by Park er and Po ll ard be cau se it was ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of the

Si xt h Am en dm en t; if so , ho w th e t r i a l c ou rt ru le d; an d whe th er th e is su e was th en

pu rs ue d on di rect ap pe al

. If th e m ot io n w a s mad e an d de ni ed

, th at wou ld at le as t

es ta bl is h t he re was no cl earl y es ta bl is he d vi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. If t he

m ot io n w a s mad e an d gr an te d, th e ru li ng wou ld on ly ha ve ex cl ud ed te st im on y by

Park er an d Po ll ard aft er th ey were effe ct iv el y fu nc ti on in g as go ve rn m en t ag en ts ; an y

“ co nf es si on ” th ey he ard be fo re th en wou ld no t be ex cl ud ed

, le av in g St ewart un ab le

to pr ov e § 19 83 in

jury cau sa ti on

. If the m ot io n was no t m ad e at al l, the n any in jury

to S t e w a r t f

r om th e tri al te st im on y of Park er an d Po ll ard was cau se d by th e

su pe rv en in g in effe ct iv e as si st a n c e of tri al an d/ or ap pe ll at e co un se l. The re is no

-1 1-co ns ti tu ti on al to rt wit ho ut in jury. Bu ck le y v. Fi tz si m

m on s, 20 F.3 d 78 9, 79 6 (7 th Ci r.

19 94 ).

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g W ag ne r an d

Sel by qu al ifi ed im m

un it y fro m th is Si xt h Am en dm en t da m ag e cl ai m , an d we ne ed no t

co ns id er Se lb y ’s alt ern at iv e ab so lu te im m un it y co nt en ti on

.

The or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t da te d Ju ne 12

, 20 15

, is rev ers ed in pa rt, an d th e

cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-